This research project entitled The Great Frame Robbery was an investigation into the
ways in which representations of public opinion have been used strategically in an effort
to influence media policy at the national level. The research project focused its attention
on a limited number of bills that were passed by the US Congress since 1988. The
legislative scope was quite broad, ranging from concerns about the risks to privacy
derived from the use of videotape rental records to concerns about the risks to children
derived from their unmonitored exploration of the World Wide Web.
Although the primary focus of the research was on the introduction of references to
public opinion in congressional hearings, a critical analysis of the use of similar
references in the news media was also included. The analysis of congressional hearings
and media coverage of the issues explored in those hearings was designed to identify the
sources of data, and the dominant policy frameworks that were favored by different
classes of policy actors. The primary distinction was between opinions reflecting the
interests of consumers, and those reflecting the interests of citizens that are ideally
supported by the media in their engagement with the public sphere. The assumption
underlying the project and reflected in its name is that talk about the interests of citizens
has been displaced by talk about the interests of consumers as part of a move toward a
marketplace model of policy formation and assessment.
The first conclusion to be drawn from this research is that public opinion plays a
relatively insignificant role in the discursive framing of media policy debates. Only in the
case of hearings related to funding for educational technology under the E-rate program
did the proportion of those including references to public opinion in their testimony
exceed 14%. Out of some 672 presentations from individuals in hearings related to the
passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, only 30 (4.5%) made any references to
the views and concerns of the public. Not a single witness in hearings scheduled in
support of the passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act made reference to public
opinion beyond identifying it as a necessary target of public relations efforts.
Although the balance of references to the views of consumers did outweigh those made
to the views of the general public, concerns about the avoidance of harms associated with
violence, pornography and invasions of privacy overwhelmed those views. More
traditional concerns about the preparation of citizens for informed participation in the
public sphere were remarkable in their absence.
The analysis of congressional hearings as well as the media coverage of the central issues
debated within these hearings revealed the ways in which polls managed or sponsored by
media organizations have come to dominate the policy discourse. The only exception to
this pattern can be seen in the framing of the privacy debate by firms in the information
intensive industries. Policy activists from the public interest community are forced to
pick and choose from among the questions posed by media sponsored polls. Policyrelevant
survey data that have been generated with foundation support enjoys considerable visibility within the news media, but is rarely cited in congressional
testimony.
The recent public uproar over being ignored by the leadership at the FCC suggests that
the public is not willing to stand by in silence while the representatives of business
interests transform the policy landscape. A new citizens’ movement may emerge from a
host of nascent struggles over the right to understand and to be understood, and the
historic linkage between public opinion and the public interest is likely to be reestablished
along the way.